how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
131 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
1 edit | Horrible editiorial Another uninformed, knee-jerk, anti-telcom piece from Karl. Where do I even start?
However the real agenda, as always, is maximizing revenue for themselves and their constituents by eliminating all regulation, creating an utterly toothless regulatory authority, and letting the nation's largest corporations run wild. They're out to do this from Area 51 in their black helocopters when they're not flying jetliners into skyscrapers I presume? Do you no remember the AT&T / SBC merger when other telcoms were in fact calling for regulation? Yes, it may have been in their interests, but since when does any entity- public or private- make a habit of taking a position contrary to their own interests?
The reality is that these groups only oppose regulation when it runs contrary to the interests of their corporate financiers and their own portfolios. For the right price, these groups would find regulations preventing the dumping of toxic chemicals into river water equally "unnecessary". And you have evidence of this, or is it yet another sophmoric ad-hominem attack? Nevermind, we all know it's the latter.
Fans of a free market should be eager to see the organic free-market at work. If these municipal broadband operations are such a flawed idea: let them fail. Perhaps because municipally funded services don't play by the same rules as private industry. If municipal broadband loses money, they have a ready supply of taxpayer money to prop it back up. No private business can compete with that; take away the incentive to compete in an area, and you end up with a local government monopoly.
Their focus is not to increase broadband deployment. That would require offering broadband services to rural portions of America, where their employer's ROI would be dubious and stock prices would suffer. You seem to be under the delusion that the telcos can simply snap their fingers and make the infrastructure appear; or perhaps it's yet another telco conspiracy.  You'd have a point if they weren't constantly expanding their broadband footprint, but they are and (as usual) you don't.
Maybe next time you can save some time and just summarize: Evil greedy telco corporations BAD!
Of course, that would summarize pretty much everything you write, wouldn't it Karl? | |
4 edits | Judging from your posts you're a Qwest employee, so I can understand being defensive, since your company has been filing endless lawsuits, trying to shut down the nation's largest muni project out here in Utah for years now.
I think you're over-simplifying the point. People aren't attacking telcos, or making money, or corporations, or capitalism. The attack is really against the use of dishonest propaganda. Also for the record, I think it's hypocritical to pretend you're concerned about "sophmoric ad-hominem attacks", then trying to tie obvious truths to conspiracy theory, with cheap references to 9-11 included.
It's conspiratorial to believe that the primary goal of these think tanks is to weaken government oversight in order to make the maximum possible revenue? Really? I think it's more conspiratorial to suggest these groups actually care about how the consumer fares during their ideological quest. | |
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | said by MinisterPeople :
aren't attacking telcos, or making money, or corporations, or capitalism. The attack is really against the use of dishonest propaganda. Really? With claims about these groups being in favor of: "eliminating all regulation, creating an utterly toothless regulatory authority, and letting the nation's largest corporations run wild."
and Their focus is not to increase broadband deployment.
and For the right price, these groups would find regulations preventing the dumping of toxic chemicals into river water equally "unnecessary".
Yeah, no anti-capitalism sentiment there
The focus of the editorial seems to be that the industry being potentially affected by taxpayer subsidized competition should have no voice in presenting their view since, you know, they're all a bunch of evil greedy lying Capitalists anyways.
Personally, I don't really care if a community that's not being served by private industry decides to deploy municipal broadband if in fact they aren't unfairly using taxpayer subsidies to compete against existing private competition and are honest to the taxpayers they represent about costs. However, based on current and proposed projects, the municipalities proposing or deploying broadband aren't being honest about costs at all while shutting private competetors out of the process.
Here in the Twin Cities they are proposing municipal WiFi with the absurd claim that it won't cost taxpayers a dime since it would supposedly save the local governments so much money that it would pay for itself... only later to include taxpayer-funded revenue guarantees to the vendor. | |
| quote:
The focus of the editorial seems to be that the industry being potentially affected by taxpayer subsidized competition should have no voice in presenting their view since, you know, they're all a bunch of evil greedy lying Capitalists anyways.
You're now making up straw man arguments to knock down. It says no such thing. It simply chastises industry funded think tanks for pretending to be objectively concerned with deployment and other advocacy issues - - when they're really acting as public relation tools for revenue maximizing political policy that could care less what happens to the end user. | |
|
